White House loyalty rating for companies(axios.com)
axios.com
White House loyalty rating for companies
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/white-house-rating-big-beautiful-bill
208 comments
I've found it helpful to view the current US admin through the lens of organized crime: if you pretend the prez is a mob boss, everything becomes much more congruent and coherent. The incentives align, the not-so-clear motivations make sense, and most definitely the methods.
More generally I'd say it's a power grab, like a monopoly. Yes abuses always happen, but even if it was all legal and above-board, the main problem is this mentality of "more power for me less power for you".
Most Americans love this idea of being powerful, which is why he won the popular vote. The rapes probably even helped him in some quarters. This idea also appeals strongly to a lot of HN - Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat".
It's anti-competitive. In reality a more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress, and even for the monopolist in the long run (Example: Intel, Russia).
Most Americans love this idea of being powerful, which is why he won the popular vote. The rapes probably even helped him in some quarters. This idea also appeals strongly to a lot of HN - Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat".
It's anti-competitive. In reality a more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress, and even for the monopolist in the long run (Example: Intel, Russia).
> Warren Buffet openly talks about the importance of getting a "moat".
The moat Buffet talks about is not the moat you appear to think it is. It does not belong in the same category as the other things you mention. Moats are a defensive structure, in Buffet terms, its about being a sustainable business "it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all, that it has this moat around it." -- the moat is "protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle" [0]
A moat is about a business having an "it" factor that sustains it, it's not offensive (attack) feature like the power grabs you talk about are.
The important part, that is missed here of Buffet talking about it, is having an honest person in charge: "And then if we feel good about the moat, then we try to figure out whether, you know, the lord is going to try to take it all for himself, whether he’s likely to do something stupid with the proceeds, et cetera. But that’s the way we look at businesses."
[0] https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---...
The moat Buffet talks about is not the moat you appear to think it is. It does not belong in the same category as the other things you mention. Moats are a defensive structure, in Buffet terms, its about being a sustainable business "it’s the low-cost producer in some area, it can be because it has a natural franchise because of surface capabilities, it could be because of its position in the consumers’ mind, it can be because of a technological advantage, or any kind of reason at all, that it has this moat around it." -- the moat is "protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle" [0]
A moat is about a business having an "it" factor that sustains it, it's not offensive (attack) feature like the power grabs you talk about are.
The important part, that is missed here of Buffet talking about it, is having an honest person in charge: "And then if we feel good about the moat, then we try to figure out whether, you know, the lord is going to try to take it all for himself, whether he’s likely to do something stupid with the proceeds, et cetera. But that’s the way we look at businesses."
[0] https://buffett.cnbc.com/video/1995/05/01/morning-session---...
Going by this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_moat
Those are all anti-competitive things. The article even links to "natural monopoly" and "barriers to entry".
It doesn't matter if they're used defensively or offensively, honestly or otherwise, the eventual distribution of power is what matters: a monopoly. At the end of the day you have very few vendors, with all the power to set prices at will, and get Buffet his massive return.
Those are all anti-competitive things. The article even links to "natural monopoly" and "barriers to entry".
It doesn't matter if they're used defensively or offensively, honestly or otherwise, the eventual distribution of power is what matters: a monopoly. At the end of the day you have very few vendors, with all the power to set prices at will, and get Buffet his massive return.
None of those things is an active power grab though, which is what I was replying to.
a "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself?
Or other things on that list (I am referring to Buffets moat, which is not entirely wikipedias moat):
Doing shady, power grabby things to drain the moat of another business into your own moat is anti-competitive. That's not what Buffet talks about though. Which I highlighted and why Buffets moat is misplaced in your list.
A Trumpian "moat" would probably fit nicely, thou currently he's more concerned with draining others moats to flood the villages around them and then take the land that's left to build a personal use golf course
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
a "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself?
Or other things on that list (I am referring to Buffets moat, which is not entirely wikipedias moat):
Network effect: "value of a good or service grows" as it's used by existing and new customers
Intangible assets: Brand Identity
Cost advantage: Companies that can keep their prices low
Doing shady, power grabby things to drain the moat of another business into your own moat is anti-competitive. That's not what Buffet talks about though. Which I highlighted and why Buffets moat is misplaced in your list.
A Trumpian "moat" would probably fit nicely, thou currently he's more concerned with draining others moats to flood the villages around them and then take the land that's left to build a personal use golf course
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
> Are economic moats anti-competitive, or just good business?
> A "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself?
These are great questions, and you should ask your favorite frontier LLM. It's systems-level thinking, the ability to see the bigger picture, which takes a while to develop and a lot of reading.
You're thinking: Great! I'm making the right decisions and winning and making money hand over fist. That's good business.
I'm thinking: If your moat is super effective (shady or not doesn't matter), it limits competition (anti-competitive) => therefore eventually higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, potential for abuse, because there's less pressure to improve and more shareholder pressure for enshittification.
If you identify with the monopoly you can't see that bigger picture. A healthy market has tons of options for customers to choose from and be served by. Again, talk to the frontier LLMs, they're pretty good at this level. Also fact check them, eg read or watch videos about antitrust enforcement under FDR, that was a crazy bit of drama.
> A "natural monopoly" is "often the first supplier in a market" [0] How is being the first, thus more time to grow a market, anti-competitive in itself?
These are great questions, and you should ask your favorite frontier LLM. It's systems-level thinking, the ability to see the bigger picture, which takes a while to develop and a lot of reading.
You're thinking: Great! I'm making the right decisions and winning and making money hand over fist. That's good business.
I'm thinking: If your moat is super effective (shady or not doesn't matter), it limits competition (anti-competitive) => therefore eventually higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, potential for abuse, because there's less pressure to improve and more shareholder pressure for enshittification.
If you identify with the monopoly you can't see that bigger picture. A healthy market has tons of options for customers to choose from and be served by. Again, talk to the frontier LLMs, they're pretty good at this level. Also fact check them, eg read or watch videos about antitrust enforcement under FDR, that was a crazy bit of drama.
> you should ask your favorite frontier LLM
I don't need to run comments through llm's to create reply's for me, but you do you. Clearly you need a better one because it went completely off the rails from my post. Good luck with that, take care.
I don't need to run comments through llm's to create reply's for me, but you do you. Clearly you need a better one because it went completely off the rails from my post. Good luck with that, take care.
It’s amazing that on HN this is not universally condemned. The big learning out of this administration is that the US people aren’t stewards of democracy. But rather fanatics of their “side”.
I'm familiar with at least one company where the execs are downright excited about the new way of doing business. No longer do you have to carefully study laws and regulations, you just have to make sure one guy likes you! It's a nice deal if you can get it, which is why I'm so aggressive about saying that the people who are getting it need to go to prison when constitutional governance is restored.
> No longer do you have to carefully study laws and regulations, you just have to make sure one guy likes you!
American civic understanding has gone through the floor. People already think that corporate quid pro quo is the default, so for some, this is actually an improvement because it's more transparent now. It can't be that corporations achieve wins through research and coalition building because that would imply that people aren't not doing enough themselves. The irony has made lobbying stigmatized in grass-roots organizations [1], which only gives corporate lobbyists more power.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/nonprofits-lobbying-less-survey-1...
American civic understanding has gone through the floor. People already think that corporate quid pro quo is the default, so for some, this is actually an improvement because it's more transparent now. It can't be that corporations achieve wins through research and coalition building because that would imply that people aren't not doing enough themselves. The irony has made lobbying stigmatized in grass-roots organizations [1], which only gives corporate lobbyists more power.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/nonprofits-lobbying-less-survey-1...
Right. The founders of the country would be shaking their heads in disbelief; every day the administration hews closer to the tyranny the Federalist Papers were so on guard against.
You can get so much done with a gold plaque!
if Trevor Milton can do it, so can you.
HN has a whole lot of people trying to make it really big financially, for a huge variety of reasons. One of the things that excludes someone from that group is an understanding that our culture is dominated by the idea that wealth is the first, biggest, best priority.
We collectively give the wealthy extra protection, status, and influence. Basically every definition or subcategory of power.
When you do this, it creates a disgusting race to the bottom from those trying to reach the top. We are seeing the ultimate result of that: a mafia kingdom. A feudal clown show.
You will see a weirdly large amount of people supporting that here because a large number of people have conditioned morality out of their ideology. Or reduced it to a very superficial level, completely subservient to the almighty dollar. "Greed is good", "the ECONOMY", "my peers do it so it's okay". And in and on and on.
In short, many would be doing the same thing in the same position and they can't see just how amoral that is. And how it reflects the utter rot that is our culture.
We collectively give the wealthy extra protection, status, and influence. Basically every definition or subcategory of power.
When you do this, it creates a disgusting race to the bottom from those trying to reach the top. We are seeing the ultimate result of that: a mafia kingdom. A feudal clown show.
You will see a weirdly large amount of people supporting that here because a large number of people have conditioned morality out of their ideology. Or reduced it to a very superficial level, completely subservient to the almighty dollar. "Greed is good", "the ECONOMY", "my peers do it so it's okay". And in and on and on.
In short, many would be doing the same thing in the same position and they can't see just how amoral that is. And how it reflects the utter rot that is our culture.
Careful, making this kind of statement publicly might hurt your loyalty rating.
Why? Tech has plenty of win at all costs people. Some of the most prominent people who openly don't believe in democracy are tech people.
Look man, dems have tried the whole "democracy is on the ballot" thing and lost two elections to trump. They have lost to him twice! Maybe instead of campaigning on how bad the other guy is (disclaimer: i fully agree that he is bad), they could actually do things that make people want to vote for them? I say this as someone who would really like to republicans lose forever after this, but who fears that the dems won't ever win again because they won't change.
Democrats lose because they keep telling the truth that people don't want to hear.
Democracy was on the ballot, at least the second time. People voted against democracy, and now there isn't democracy. The regime is invading its own cities to purge them of dissidents.
But everyone thought this was alarmist and voted against the guys who said it would happen. They have no charisma.
Democracy was on the ballot, at least the second time. People voted against democracy, and now there isn't democracy. The regime is invading its own cities to purge them of dissidents.
But everyone thought this was alarmist and voted against the guys who said it would happen. They have no charisma.
It's August in a non-election year, nobody's campaigning right now.
I agree with your fear, but one of the key problems Dems have faced in their messaging is a false perception that the modern Republican party believes in truth, democracy, or the rule of law. A lot of effort went into negotiating bipartisan immigration reform in 2024, because the negotiators falsely believed that Republicans wanted immigration to be reformed. It would have been a great reason to vote for them if it had worked! But once the negotiators announced a breakthrough, Trump issued new instructions that Republicans who want to stay in good standing must not support it and his appointed Speaker of the House must never let the bill come up for a vote, ensuring that it could never pass.
So it's not enough to come up with a reason to make people want to vote for you. You have to come up with a reason that Trump can't tell plausible lies about, and that Trump's anti-democratic conduct can't defeat. That's a much harder problem.
I agree with your fear, but one of the key problems Dems have faced in their messaging is a false perception that the modern Republican party believes in truth, democracy, or the rule of law. A lot of effort went into negotiating bipartisan immigration reform in 2024, because the negotiators falsely believed that Republicans wanted immigration to be reformed. It would have been a great reason to vote for them if it had worked! But once the negotiators announced a breakthrough, Trump issued new instructions that Republicans who want to stay in good standing must not support it and his appointed Speaker of the House must never let the bill come up for a vote, ensuring that it could never pass.
So it's not enough to come up with a reason to make people want to vote for you. You have to come up with a reason that Trump can't tell plausible lies about, and that Trump's anti-democratic conduct can't defeat. That's a much harder problem.
But that's why they're losing. Republicans are in permanent campaign mode. Did Trump shut up after he left office in disgrace in 2021? No, he just kept acting like he was president and kept his coalition together.
I agree with all your criticisms of Republicans. But Dems have major faults. they're bad communicators. They won't push symbolic votes (where they don't have the numbers but do it anyway to appease their base). They don't put out aggressive policy agendas because they don't want the Republicans to criticize them, instead they run like middle managers trying to ace the interview. Half of them can't articulate what they stand for besides being seen as decent and competent.
Their biggest problem is that they are fundamentally conflict averse. Great in normal times when negotiation and compromise and mutuality are in vogue, utterly useless in this political moment. Only 10-15% of them in Congress have the will and skill to fight, most of them are just like panic-stricken bystanders shouting 'keep calm, keep calm!' and 'we're having a problem, we need to do something!'
I agree with all your criticisms of Republicans. But Dems have major faults. they're bad communicators. They won't push symbolic votes (where they don't have the numbers but do it anyway to appease their base). They don't put out aggressive policy agendas because they don't want the Republicans to criticize them, instead they run like middle managers trying to ace the interview. Half of them can't articulate what they stand for besides being seen as decent and competent.
Their biggest problem is that they are fundamentally conflict averse. Great in normal times when negotiation and compromise and mutuality are in vogue, utterly useless in this political moment. Only 10-15% of them in Congress have the will and skill to fight, most of them are just like panic-stricken bystanders shouting 'keep calm, keep calm!' and 'we're having a problem, we need to do something!'
I agree with everything you're saying, but the biggest problem you point out is exactly what the democracy talk is meant to solve. The Democratic coalition includes more than a few people - not just politicians, voters too - who specifically value negotiation and compromise and mutuality over most if not all policy objectives. The only way to convince them to support a knock-down fight is to convince them that they have to fight, that we have to pause negotiation and compromise for now or risk losing it forever.
I've been trying to convince them of that for 15 years and it's only recently that the party base is tilting in the direction of possibly-maybe being more confrontational. Most Congressional democrats have yet to get the message, or mouth the rhetoric but make no effort to match it with legislative actions (even superficially futile ones).
[deleted]
I know it is a cliche at this point but there are clear parallels to what happened in Nazi Germany.
Many people don't know is that the Nazi party was voted democratically into the government. They didn't win the majority but got most votes. They were majority in the Reichstag (Congress). One of the selling point was that Weimar Republic had lost World War I and the reparations paid to the Allied powers was a slap in the face and the country has fallen (aka country was no longer great, people were laughing at them etc ). Hilter wasn't even elected, he was appointed by the Nazi Party.
The Nazi Party then went on a spree - twisting arms, illegal detention etc to get what they want. Lot of people were complicit in their rise. As Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
At this point there is no dearth of fools who think because they are above the "left" because their party is in power. If they continue to align or voraciously defend these intimidation tactics and tariffs etc they are going to be better off.
If there is a big learning to had here - History repeats itself. Mostly because people think they are better than people who came before them. People believe that the can get along with a person who cares nothing but for power. At this point, there is nothing which can be said or done to help them because they believe their enemies being better off is the win.
Many people don't know is that the Nazi party was voted democratically into the government. They didn't win the majority but got most votes. They were majority in the Reichstag (Congress). One of the selling point was that Weimar Republic had lost World War I and the reparations paid to the Allied powers was a slap in the face and the country has fallen (aka country was no longer great, people were laughing at them etc ). Hilter wasn't even elected, he was appointed by the Nazi Party.
The Nazi Party then went on a spree - twisting arms, illegal detention etc to get what they want. Lot of people were complicit in their rise. As Martin Niemöller wrote:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
At this point there is no dearth of fools who think because they are above the "left" because their party is in power. If they continue to align or voraciously defend these intimidation tactics and tariffs etc they are going to be better off.
If there is a big learning to had here - History repeats itself. Mostly because people think they are better than people who came before them. People believe that the can get along with a person who cares nothing but for power. At this point, there is nothing which can be said or done to help them because they believe their enemies being better off is the win.
> They were majority in the Reichstag
No, they weren't, they formed a coalition government with another far right party and still that was a minority coalition that was put into place by the (elected with a majority) President (who was not a Nazi) because there was no majority coalition formed.
Even in the first (and only multiparty) election after the Hitler-led minority coalition was installed, (which was very much not a free and fair election) the Nazis themselves still didn't win a majority, though the Nazi/DVNP coalition did secure a majority.
The Nazis did get an “elected” majority in the 1936 election, where only Nazi party members and Nazi-invited guests (one per seat) were on the ballot, in a single “approve/reject” slate in each constituency, but...
> Hilter wasn't even elected he was appointed by the Nazi Party.
This is true in the same sense that it is true that the PM of the UK is appointed by their party, not elected. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party, he and his coalition government were appointed by the President (who wasn't part of the Nazi Party)
No, they weren't, they formed a coalition government with another far right party and still that was a minority coalition that was put into place by the (elected with a majority) President (who was not a Nazi) because there was no majority coalition formed.
Even in the first (and only multiparty) election after the Hitler-led minority coalition was installed, (which was very much not a free and fair election) the Nazis themselves still didn't win a majority, though the Nazi/DVNP coalition did secure a majority.
The Nazis did get an “elected” majority in the 1936 election, where only Nazi party members and Nazi-invited guests (one per seat) were on the ballot, in a single “approve/reject” slate in each constituency, but...
> Hilter wasn't even elected he was appointed by the Nazi Party.
This is true in the same sense that it is true that the PM of the UK is appointed by their party, not elected. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party, he and his coalition government were appointed by the President (who wasn't part of the Nazi Party)
mathiaspoint(4)
I've been beating this drum for a while and I'm going to keep doing it. If you run or make strategic decisions for a tech company in 2025, you need to understand that many if not most of your competitors are working hard to figure out how to wield the federal government in their favor. I wouldn't advise doing it yourself, unless you'd like to go to prison for bribery alongside Tim Cook in 2029, but any assumption that the current federal government will treat you fairly without taking their side in political battles is a grave strategic error.
> I wouldn't advise doing it yourself, unless you'd like to go to prison for bribery alongside Tim Cook in 2029
That's optimistic that you think anyone is going to prison in 2029.
That's optimistic that you think anyone is going to prison in 2029.
Well, early supporters of fascism do tend to end up in prison, because fascism needs purges. So in a monkey paw way, I wouldn't bet against the current crop of CEOs falling from graces very hard.
That's not quite how facism works.
There are the purges. But it's normally not the corporate or moneyed puppetmasters getting purged, rather it's the political allies of the fascists that get purged. Military and law enforcement leaders who start off as allies have a particularly dismal survival record in these kinds of governments, since they don't have even the ephemeral protection of democratic legitimacy.
There are the purges. But it's normally not the corporate or moneyed puppetmasters getting purged, rather it's the political allies of the fascists that get purged. Military and law enforcement leaders who start off as allies have a particularly dismal survival record in these kinds of governments, since they don't have even the ephemeral protection of democratic legitimacy.
It may take longer, but they will, eventually. Maybe not Tim Cook.
Or vote in 2028
The companies that you could accuse of outright bribery are Meta, Twitter, Paramount, and Disney who all gave money that benefited the President directly.
Cook kissing ass and giving the President a meaningless trinket, doesn’t quite arise to that level.
Cook kissing ass and giving the President a meaningless trinket, doesn’t quite arise to that level.
I've seen values estimated at between $150,000 to $200,000 for that trinket. That's actually a pretty solid bribe for most politicians and that's just what's been visible to the public.
For comparison, in AZ we had legislators caught in a sting operation that were selling individual votes for gambling legislation for between $660 to $60,000 in the 1990s.
We should not normalize this. That was a outright bribe even if it wasn't as big as what others gave. I wouldn't get off the hook for murder just because I argued that Ted Bundy killed waaaaaaay more people than me.
For comparison, in AZ we had legislators caught in a sting operation that were selling individual votes for gambling legislation for between $660 to $60,000 in the 1990s.
We should not normalize this. That was a outright bribe even if it wasn't as big as what others gave. I wouldn't get off the hook for murder just because I argued that Ted Bundy killed waaaaaaay more people than me.
Too late “we” as a country already have. This country left caring about ethics and morals in 2016.
The fancy glass engraved with Trump's name is a meaningless trinket, but the solid 24karat gold base is about as obvious a tribute payment as you can imagine.
This.
I mean billionaires don't even go to prison for engaging in pedophilia. Which is just about the worst crime you can commit. If anyone thinks liberals or conservatives will put them in prison for bribery, they're being a little naive.
This nation is owned by the billionaires. In all honesty, they don't even need to be in alignment with the government. There's next to nothing the government can do to rein in giant banks. If anything, the government has to be certain to make sure the banks are appeased.
I mean billionaires don't even go to prison for engaging in pedophilia. Which is just about the worst crime you can commit. If anyone thinks liberals or conservatives will put them in prison for bribery, they're being a little naive.
This nation is owned by the billionaires. In all honesty, they don't even need to be in alignment with the government. There's next to nothing the government can do to rein in giant banks. If anything, the government has to be certain to make sure the banks are appeased.
You could say "moneyed interests". There is a distinction - there are both huge companies and billionaires, and a lot of the companies are owned in part or in whole by the billionaires. But together, they increasingly determine how our political system is run.
It all seems to entrenched and at the same time escalating, it feels like it's inevitable it'll all fall apart. I'm surprised we're not seeing more moneyed interests colluding to establish equilibrium which is sustainable.
It all seems to entrenched and at the same time escalating, it feels like it's inevitable it'll all fall apart. I'm surprised we're not seeing more moneyed interests colluding to establish equilibrium which is sustainable.
Trying to give something more power because you think it likes power is generally considered risky
https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1849951974944313590?lang...
https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1849951974944313590?lang...
The exception, of course, is if you expect to co-benefit - Intel sent their CEO to kiss the ring and now they might be getting free investment money out of the deal. But it's definitely a risky strategy.
It was literally less than 48 hours where the president went from fully negative to fully positive on the intel ceo. I don’t think the ring is all the ceo kissed. That’s the president’s plan for every ceo.
That is not an exception, it's exactly what the Tweet is talking about
It's not. The Intel CEO wasn't obeying "in advance", he went to the White House after Trump announced (with absolutely no explanation) that Intel must fire him.
I doubt anyone will care about this in four years. Society grows accustomed to daily life, as with the Vichy. The job market will be in tatters, similar to what South Africa has now with 40% unemployment. Every time a homeless person steals copper wire from a street lamp in LA, they make $50 from illegal recyclers and it costs taxpayers $10k to fix. $20 million per year, $100 million since 2020. 2029 there will be crime drones swarming LA recording crimes and seeking overly tanned people in real time on YouTube. LA took out a $1 billion loan this year to keep the lights on, and now Denver wants to do the same with zero economic prospects, which is a weird sales pitch.
jurking_hoff(2)
>If you run or make strategic decisions for a tech company in 2025, you need to understand that many if not most of your competitors are working hard to figure out how to wield the federal government in their favor.
This has been true in every industry and every company for the last 100 years. It's not even illegal, unless you're out there offering quid pro quo bribes.
This has been true in every industry and every company for the last 100 years. It's not even illegal, unless you're out there offering quid pro quo bribes.
> "unless you'd like to go to prison for bribery alongside Tim Cook in 2029"
I don't understand how anyone could disagree with this assessment. This is the most transparent bribe ever,
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Getty... ("Donald Trump speaks behind an engraved glass disc gifted to him by Apple CEO Tim Cook during an event in the Oval Office of the White House")
I don't understand how anyone could disagree with this assessment. This is the most transparent bribe ever,
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Getty... ("Donald Trump speaks behind an engraved glass disc gifted to him by Apple CEO Tim Cook during an event in the Oval Office of the White House")
When the reckoning finally arrives the aristocrats will forgive themselves in the spirit of reconciliation and moving on, just like they did after WWII. Plenty of American companies like IBM made tons of money helping the Nazis and then after Berlin fell it turned out they were actually always on the side of freedom and there is absolutely no need to expand the war crimes trials to include collaborators.
Billionaires (in good graces) won't go to prison for the foreseeable future, but small fish will. Furthermore, the absurdly rich will exploit their newly-expanded corruption via patronage options with executive, legislative, and judicial branches to harm their competitors and enemies. This is why Tim Cook gave 47 a gold award. The system is coming apart at the seams for ordinary people and they're losing faith in the legitimacy of the legal and economic systems. This is how communism and civil wars start.
Wonder if there are any groups out there tracking a "Democracy Loyalty Rating" (i.e. the opposition)...
Just Devil's Advocate, but this being the US, the opposition doesn't necessarily support pure democratic ideals either.
It's just that the conservatives are so much further along the authoritarianism scale that the liberals appear to be freedom loving democracy activists by comparison. But I guarantee you, if you were to drop the average US Democratic party politician into Germany, Australia, or Canada, they'd be considered to be so far right of center that people would question whether or not that politician even believes in democracy.
It's just that the conservatives are so much further along the authoritarianism scale that the liberals appear to be freedom loving democracy activists by comparison. But I guarantee you, if you were to drop the average US Democratic party politician into Germany, Australia, or Canada, they'd be considered to be so far right of center that people would question whether or not that politician even believes in democracy.
It's absolutely not the case that the average Democratic party politician would be considered far right of center in Germany, Australia, or Canada. The Democratic party has an entirely normal center-left platform. Policy outcomes consistently end up in a space that most countries consider right-leaning, but this has nothing to do with what the average Democratic politician wants. It stems from the frequent necessity of compromising with arch-conservatives to form a majority.
The ratchet effect is real. American liberals have comfortably positioned themselves as the counter to authoritarianism but you'll notice that they never actually make things less authoritarian. They're thrilled to keep the direct power seized by the right, and to expand their own soft power where possible.
> you'll notice that they never actually make things less authoritarian
They tried, but it was blocked by Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
They tried, but it was blocked by Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
That doesn't really refute what they said. It didn't "actually" make things less authoritarian. From my perspective, the only thing that's worth giving Dems the benefit of the doubt is that they haven't had House/Senate/Presidency control for the entirety of my adult life. If they had that and they still managed to be entirely ineffective, then it would just be entirely undeniable that they're complicit in the rise of authoritarianism.
As is, there's this veneer of plausible deniability that, shucks, they really want to help but those other guys don't let them. The practical reality of their policy making is to increase authoritarianism under the guise of "some progress is better than no progress", disregarding that what Democratic leaders call progress their voters (and other democratic societies) call regress.
(Don't get me wrong, I hold no illusion that the red party is at all less authoritarian; my point is that the blue party demonstrates through their actual policy that they are also authoritarian.)
As is, there's this veneer of plausible deniability that, shucks, they really want to help but those other guys don't let them. The practical reality of their policy making is to increase authoritarianism under the guise of "some progress is better than no progress", disregarding that what Democratic leaders call progress their voters (and other democratic societies) call regress.
(Don't get me wrong, I hold no illusion that the red party is at all less authoritarian; my point is that the blue party demonstrates through their actual policy that they are also authoritarian.)
Ahh yes only the left has agency
???
???
that's a wild misreading of the idea that the powerful like to keep and expand their power
> Trump works transactionally
Why can't we just call this corruption? Is there any other, more charitable, interpretation of "transactional"?
Why can't we just call this corruption? Is there any other, more charitable, interpretation of "transactional"?
Transactional at best. Not sly mob-leader transactional, but toddler transactional.
Edit: to his own detriment. Why bother with "deals" when you know it can change at any moment. Just put on a golden dog and pony show for the King and hope for the best.
Edit: to his own detriment. Why bother with "deals" when you know it can change at any moment. Just put on a golden dog and pony show for the King and hope for the best.
An article on HN yesterday calculated that he has made $2 billion on these various deals. Sounds like it's working great for him.
Yeah, good for him. Bad for the country. But he’s hardly a patriot.
He's meeting with Komprat holder daddy to give an palm up handshake to discuss Ukraine's surrender of land without Ukraine.
It has become so normal, nobody is even calling it corruption any more. See also: “regulatory capture”.
Centimillionaires and billionaires, rather than creators of value, are varying degrees of exploitative extractive from consumers and capturing of value rather than paying workers fairly. 60 years ago, companies offered workers stability and defined benefits retirement plan, less political influence, and reasonable CEO:worker pay ratios. This isn't sustainable because the country club Tea Party WASPs are running the asylum by turning a former superpower into a third-world country pariah.
I suppose the charitable interpretation is that Trump favors transactions that offer short-term benefits to the country, rather than America’s traditional investments into long-term goals that tend to be more nebulous (“soft power” etc.)
Of course, one look at Trump’s actual transactions in office should dissuade of that notion. After he made the preliminary trade deal with the EU, he bragged on TV that Europeans are investing $600 billion and Trump himself gets to decide where the money goes. It’s baffling that anyone would assume that’s how any of this works, but he clearly thinks the point of these transactions is to get more power and wealth for himself.
Of course, one look at Trump’s actual transactions in office should dissuade of that notion. After he made the preliminary trade deal with the EU, he bragged on TV that Europeans are investing $600 billion and Trump himself gets to decide where the money goes. It’s baffling that anyone would assume that’s how any of this works, but he clearly thinks the point of these transactions is to get more power and wealth for himself.
>It’s baffling that anyone would assume that’s how any of this works.
It's because the president said it on TV.
It's because the president said it on TV.
Is that a recursive loop? The president thinks that’s how it works because the president said so on TV.
I can believe that kind of reinforcement happens. Trump watches Fox News, sees himself saying X, and thinks “yes, it’s very good that {X}.”
I can believe that kind of reinforcement happens. Trump watches Fox News, sees himself saying X, and thinks “yes, it’s very good that {X}.”
>Is that a recursive loop? The president thinks that’s how it works because the president said so on TV.
He's probably exactly this stupid, but in regards to the sentence
>It’s baffling that anyone would assume that’s how any of this works.
I was referring to the rest of the anyone.
He's probably exactly this stupid, but in regards to the sentence
>It’s baffling that anyone would assume that’s how any of this works.
I was referring to the rest of the anyone.
When malignant narcissist psychopathic pedophile criminals take power, they don't have a constructive plan for maximum long term benefit to society because they don't know anything and DGAF except that which benefits them personally.
When every politician is a TV show, the genre-savvy one wins.
*Trump favors transactions that offer short-term benefits to himself (via maintaining or expanding power or money).
FTFY.
FTFY.
Just one tiny step away from China’s social credit score.
More fascism that the people with their heads in the sand will poo poo as a nothingburger. Mixing politics and corporations is a tradition amongst authoritarian governments.
Most of those people have never lived in an authoritarian/fascist country and experienced it first hand, or if they did, they were one of the beneficiaries and are eager to repeat it in the US.
it really is just continually amazing that the American elite is almost entirely fine with the executive ending the rule of law and the pretence that the President isn't meant to use the powers of office purely to enrich himself and reward favoured courtiers.
why has no CEO of any, even medium sized, company come out and just said "fuck this, fuck you, fuck 33% of voters, we'll continue to try to operate like a normal country in our little corner"? I'm sure some absolutely fucking vile sociopaths will buy one share and then launch a shareholder lawsuit demanding the CEO be as pathetic as the rest of them and that Not Bribing The President is a new form of securities fraud, but you need at least one person to loudly say no to this nightmare if you want any hope of it ending.
why has no CEO of any, even medium sized, company come out and just said "fuck this, fuck you, fuck 33% of voters, we'll continue to try to operate like a normal country in our little corner"? I'm sure some absolutely fucking vile sociopaths will buy one share and then launch a shareholder lawsuit demanding the CEO be as pathetic as the rest of them and that Not Bribing The President is a new form of securities fraud, but you need at least one person to loudly say no to this nightmare if you want any hope of it ending.
Unfortunately the executive branch has a lot of power, and many opposed to these wild moves are fearful that openly speaking out will lead to retaliation. Witness the revocation of grant money at targeted universities, for example. Also consider how tariffs are applied and un-applied at moment’s notice.
The only way out that I see is for the executive branch to eventually overplay its hand and anger enough MAGA voters to risk losing the House and perhaps the Senate, thus opening the door for the opposition to have the numbers to block legislation and even threaten impeachment over egregious violations of the Constitution.
The only way out that I see is for the executive branch to eventually overplay its hand and anger enough MAGA voters to risk losing the House and perhaps the Senate, thus opening the door for the opposition to have the numbers to block legislation and even threaten impeachment over egregious violations of the Constitution.
How many is enough? Half of Republicans stated they would still support Trump even if proven he was a child rapist on the Epstein plane. I don't think there is a bar low enough for conservatives to drop support. At some point we have to accept that they weren't just duped. They actually want these things to be happening.
They just want their team to win, but they barely even understand the sport.
I have very strong (and cynical) opinions on why people run companies do this but I was told posting it has made me unemployable so I’ll keep the spicier ones to myself.
I think a lot of it comes down to motivations. The people running these companies have very little to gain from acting ethically and a lot to lose.
I think a lot of it comes down to motivations. The people running these companies have very little to gain from acting ethically and a lot to lose.
I agree. There should be at least one from Patagonia or some decent company who takes a stand just by the law of numbers. It's possible they have a legal obligation to shareholders to not do it. Which is totally fucked and why our country and economy are now not repairable.
if it's a public company the CEO would probably be fired for not holding up its fiduciary duty to its shareholders (his/her primary responsibility)
I've seen plenty of small businesses show signs of protest (in select cities of course), but they're not part of the American elite
the thing is that not only does the executive branch have a considerable amount of power, we are now finding out just how much power it has if it's 1) willing to go against norms and morals; 2) violate, twist or misapply the law figuring it'll take a while to make its way through the courts and it has a shot at winning; 3) bring the legislative branch into subservience with the threat of unleashing the full might of presidential power directly against their re-election campaigns; 4) go after companies (law firms, universities, media, businesses) with everything it can (law suits, withdrawing access/permits, etc.), and using whatever excuse (i.e., anti-semitism) as (thin) legal cover; and 5) staffs the bureaucracy with loyal cronies who will execute regardless of whether it's right or wrong, and purge everyone else.
The above could easily be describing Russia or China -- that's how bad it is now in the US. But Trump has exposed the weakness of the US "checks and balances" system that it prides itself on -- it only works if the president is someone who is willing to abide by its constraints. Look how easy it has been for a demagogue to upend it? And the only hope is that he'll be gone in 3.5 years, but that's if he doesn't find a way to stay in power longer or run things through Vance the way Putin did with Medvedev.
I've seen plenty of small businesses show signs of protest (in select cities of course), but they're not part of the American elite
the thing is that not only does the executive branch have a considerable amount of power, we are now finding out just how much power it has if it's 1) willing to go against norms and morals; 2) violate, twist or misapply the law figuring it'll take a while to make its way through the courts and it has a shot at winning; 3) bring the legislative branch into subservience with the threat of unleashing the full might of presidential power directly against their re-election campaigns; 4) go after companies (law firms, universities, media, businesses) with everything it can (law suits, withdrawing access/permits, etc.), and using whatever excuse (i.e., anti-semitism) as (thin) legal cover; and 5) staffs the bureaucracy with loyal cronies who will execute regardless of whether it's right or wrong, and purge everyone else.
The above could easily be describing Russia or China -- that's how bad it is now in the US. But Trump has exposed the weakness of the US "checks and balances" system that it prides itself on -- it only works if the president is someone who is willing to abide by its constraints. Look how easy it has been for a demagogue to upend it? And the only hope is that he'll be gone in 3.5 years, but that's if he doesn't find a way to stay in power longer or run things through Vance the way Putin did with Medvedev.
People in power are drawn to more power. Non democratic governments provide them easy access to buying certainty and success.
Meanwhile SCOTUS has shown zero interest in taking action so if a CEO spoke up and Trump & Co. destroyed his business ... I would not blame them for thinking that the judicial branch will not save him.
In many ways SCOTUS's inaction has made all this possible, taken the usual path to resolving it away.
Meanwhile SCOTUS has shown zero interest in taking action so if a CEO spoke up and Trump & Co. destroyed his business ... I would not blame them for thinking that the judicial branch will not save him.
In many ways SCOTUS's inaction has made all this possible, taken the usual path to resolving it away.
jurking_hoff(1)
This is fascism. There is no longer separation between the government and private industry as a result of the criminal and out-of-control authoritarian Trump administration.
By and large, Silicon Valley and its kingmakers are fully in support of this, many vocally so.
By and large, Silicon Valley and its kingmakers are fully in support of this, many vocally so.
> Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America and the Steel Manufacturers Association.
Someone should start a boycott list. I for one will not doing business with these companies any longer.
Someone should start a boycott list. I for one will not doing business with these companies any longer.
>boycott Cisco
So are you getting a HAM licence then?
So are you getting a HAM licence then?
I don't mean that I'm not going to do anything that involves them, which isn't realistic. But I'm not buying any Cisco equipment or services directly; that's something I have control over.
As bad as this is it will only lead to more brigading about how billionaires like Zuckerberg were talking about being repressed under the Dems/Biden. It just seems the party condemning others regarding first amendment rights isn't that first amendment. And for others yet this is going to be only a "rating" or a list. Nothing bad is going to happen just because the list or rating exists. Right?
To them I ask to explain how many points Tim ̶A̶p̶p̶l̶e̶ Cook and Apple got for his gold bar:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/07/tim-...
To them I ask to explain how many points Tim ̶A̶p̶p̶l̶e̶ Cook and Apple got for his gold bar:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/07/tim-...
This is fascism. The merging of corporations and the government.
Yes—more broadly, this is totalitarianism. [0] Every CEO on this list should loudly denounce it and call it out for what it is.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TotalitarianismSo in your definition that makes China fascists, considering all its big corporations are merged with the government?
I'd say it's the nature of power, politics and the existence of government. They start out small and then grow and attract corruption. You can only slow it down by having things like democracy (especially direct democracy) and separation of power.
I'd say it's the nature of power, politics and the existence of government. They start out small and then grow and attract corruption. You can only slow it down by having things like democracy (especially direct democracy) and separation of power.
Yes? I'm surprised that the idea the Chinese government is fascist is a controversial one. China is easily a totalitarian government.
It's pathetic how many people just shrug their shoulders at it and let it happen. The president is a corrupt clown, and people delude themselves into accepting it so they can line their pockets as well.
nimbius(2)
marcusverus(1)
I don’t like it but it’s not the first time. FDR’s National Recovery Administration crossed similar boundaries.
I mean at first glance, this doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. But ignoring my initial reaction; I don't think this is any different from lobby groups keeping tabs on what congressmen say vs do.
Just this time it's the government tracking which companies are pro-government currently.
It's not nice, but this government is transactional at best.
While I choose not to play games; it's hard not to play when the other side is the government.
This does explain all the random gifts the government is getting.
Just this time it's the government tracking which companies are pro-government currently.
It's not nice, but this government is transactional at best.
While I choose not to play games; it's hard not to play when the other side is the government.
This does explain all the random gifts the government is getting.
>I don't think this is any different from lobby groups
for starter, lobby groups cannot issue executive orders just start and stop tariffs and government grant willy nilly
for starter, lobby groups cannot issue executive orders just start and stop tariffs and government grant willy nilly
> It's not nice, but this government is transactional at best.
Is it? Will it remain so? Things sometimes are until they aren't and the difference is sometimes impossible to distinguish. Better not to give fascism the benefit of the doubt it doesn't deserve.
Is it? Will it remain so? Things sometimes are until they aren't and the difference is sometimes impossible to distinguish. Better not to give fascism the benefit of the doubt it doesn't deserve.
Lobby groups are private actors rating elected Congressional reps. This is government officials rating private actors (with an implied threat to punish those who don’t comply).
I don't think "transactional" is the right word at all. There's no durable deal you can make with the government that will stop them from demanding more. The President's open, explicitly stated position is that the American economy belongs to him, and you have no right to conduct your business in a way he doesn't like.
You can't appease bullies. They always come back for your lunch money again on some future day. Any promises they make are worthless.
Just this time it's the government tracking which companies are pro-government currently.
Electoral power is not commutative
Electoral power is not commutative
I do not like the Trump administration, but they don't exist in a vacuum.
It seems the most of their policies are bitter reactions to perceived misdeeds from "the left".
Corruption definitely crosses the aisle.
It seems the most of their policies are bitter reactions to perceived misdeeds from "the left".
Corruption definitely crosses the aisle.
> Corruption definitely crosses the aisle.
And all that aside -- in what world is the appropriate response to perceived misdeeds by a political opponent to crank the dial up to 11 on running the government as your combination personal slush fund, army, and all-encompassing bureaucratic warfare organization?
> in what world is the appropriate response to perceived misdeeds by a political opponent to crank the dial up to 11
A world in the throes of absolute war against an entirely dehumanized opponent. If the enemy is definitionally maximally evil, then absolutely any action is permissible as long as it hurts the Other.
A world in the throes of absolute war against an entirely dehumanized opponent. If the enemy is definitionally maximally evil, then absolutely any action is permissible as long as it hurts the Other.
I need to the left's version of starting your own memecoin and openly taking bribes from officials and foreign countries.
I also would like the left's version of pardoning people who they directly do business with.
Those legitimately parrot the "both sides" stuff are terribly naive. No one who actually pays attention to what's happening thinks these parties are remotely similar right now.
I also would like the left's version of pardoning people who they directly do business with.
Those legitimately parrot the "both sides" stuff are terribly naive. No one who actually pays attention to what's happening thinks these parties are remotely similar right now.
memecoin scams: I offer up a President wearing a tan suit in exchange, and depths of depravity
taking bribes (planes) from foreign countries: I offer in exchange, a former President who dared to use Dijon mustard instead of plain yellow mustard, the monster.
taking bribes (planes) from foreign countries: I offer in exchange, a former President who dared to use Dijon mustard instead of plain yellow mustard, the monster.
In all fairness it wasn't the greatest shade of tan
I find it interesting (in a dismaying sense) how many people are perfectly comfortable or even in favor of government oversteps by “their” team that are aligned with outcomes they like but act shocked and indignant when the “other” team does it.
IMO, the solution is to demand constitutional and law-following behavior from both/all teams, but to be particularly careful to do that with your preferred side, as you might be prone to overlook those excesses.
IMO, the solution is to demand constitutional and law-following behavior from both/all teams, but to be particularly careful to do that with your preferred side, as you might be prone to overlook those excesses.
>the solution is to demand constitutional and law-following behavior from both/all teams
This is only a solution if you can reasonably anticipate the demands being obeyed. If instead you anticipate that they won't be obeyed (by one or both parties), then it only puts your team at a disadvantage. The other team knows this, so they tend to ignore or ridicule any such demands and to whip their team into ignoring and ridiculing those demands. At which point, your team suffers.
Cooperation strategies in an adversarial system only work in a limited set of highly unusual circumstances, and those circumstances aren't currently extant.
This is only a solution if you can reasonably anticipate the demands being obeyed. If instead you anticipate that they won't be obeyed (by one or both parties), then it only puts your team at a disadvantage. The other team knows this, so they tend to ignore or ridicule any such demands and to whip their team into ignoring and ridiculing those demands. At which point, your team suffers.
Cooperation strategies in an adversarial system only work in a limited set of highly unusual circumstances, and those circumstances aren't currently extant.
This is what the system of checks-and-balances was supposed to enforce. Turns out that system is not effective if you vote the same party into power in each aspect of the government.
Yes, all political parties and organizations must be accountable to the Constitution and the law.
We also need to be honest with ourselves as a nation that Trumpism pushes far further into unconstitutional and law-disregarding behavior than what has come before. Pretending it is equivalent, as the starting comment does, is dangerous.
We also need to be honest with ourselves as a nation that Trumpism pushes far further into unconstitutional and law-disregarding behavior than what has come before. Pretending it is equivalent, as the starting comment does, is dangerous.
Bad governance does not justify more bad governance. Even if it's true that previous admins have done all this before (it's not) it wouldn't justify a thing.
Here's the hilarious part: When you say "previous admins" you're almost certainly talking about previous Republican admins.
https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/have-there-been-significant...
https://gigafact.org/fact-briefs/have-there-been-significant...
I don’t know if it falls into the strict definition of “corruption”, but definitely falls into the broader category of “shitty”, but democrat politicians don’t seem to be above abusing their power to enrich themselves with the stock market.
There’s an entire (successful) ETF exploiting it. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NANC/
I’m not a conservative, I’m pretty left-leaning by (American standards at least), but I am not going to act like my side is categorically better in this regard.
There’s an entire (successful) ETF exploiting it. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NANC/
I’m not a conservative, I’m pretty left-leaning by (American standards at least), but I am not going to act like my side is categorically better in this regard.
I'm sorry to break the news to you, but if you're using the phrase "democrat politicians", you're extremely conservative. This phrase does not exist and is never used outside of deeply partisan conservative circles. If this doesn't align with your understanding of who you are and what you believe, I'd urgently reevaluate your media consumption habits.
I’m on the left and I use that phrase. It took me forever to figure out what was “wrong” with it. They’re democrats, democrat politicians.
Like the other person said, this usage is extremely common and not just on extremist conservative spaces, unless your definition of “extremist” includes 80% of the USA’s overton window
Like the other person said, this usage is extremely common and not just on extremist conservative spaces, unless your definition of “extremist” includes 80% of the USA’s overton window
Yeah, that’s the thing.
I think a lot of people spend all day on leftist YouTube and live in leftist Discord servers and hang out with self-proclaimed Marxist friends, and that’s all completely fine, but as a result of people not being tuned into their specific vernacular they act like this shit is a dog whistle instead of the fact that i just don’t know (or care much about) this specific vocabulary.
I suppose I could be a useful idiot for this, but I don’t feel like saying “democrat” is really that bad as far as these things go.
To be fair, republicans are far worse with regards to “pretending to be offended”. You cannot convince me that anyone is actually offended by the term “happy holidays”, but every year I get to hear about a “war on Christmas”
I think a lot of people spend all day on leftist YouTube and live in leftist Discord servers and hang out with self-proclaimed Marxist friends, and that’s all completely fine, but as a result of people not being tuned into their specific vernacular they act like this shit is a dog whistle instead of the fact that i just don’t know (or care much about) this specific vocabulary.
I suppose I could be a useful idiot for this, but I don’t feel like saying “democrat” is really that bad as far as these things go.
To be fair, republicans are far worse with regards to “pretending to be offended”. You cannot convince me that anyone is actually offended by the term “happy holidays”, but every year I get to hear about a “war on Christmas”
I have personally known people to be offended by the term and the broader war on Christmas they feel it represents.
I know a bunch of people who say they’re offended by it. I don’t believe them, they’re lying to me or themselves, but I think the former.
I could be wrong, it’s likely even, but it’s just not something I am going to be convinced of. I think they’re pretending to be offended, because if they act offended then it’s easier for them to “both-sides” stuff, or they think it shows how good of Christians they are.
I could be wrong, it’s likely even, but it’s just not something I am going to be convinced of. I think they’re pretending to be offended, because if they act offended then it’s easier for them to “both-sides” stuff, or they think it shows how good of Christians they are.
It’s actually not conservative at all, they run under the democrat sticker, this is the self-prescribed label.
We can argue that the American democrats aren’t very left-leaning and I would probably agree with you, but I reject the idea that I cannot use their own labels to describe them without being described as conservative.
We can argue that the American democrats aren’t very left-leaning and I would probably agree with you, but I reject the idea that I cannot use their own labels to describe them without being described as conservative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
You're wrong on both the history and modern usage.
You're wrong on both the history and modern usage.
Fair enough. I meant to type Democratic but I guess I typed Democrat by mistake and didn’t realize it had baggage. I was typing on a phone.
It does seem like a pretty easy mistake to make regardless and I don’t think it’s reasonable to call me “extremely conservative” for making it. It’s still pretty common to call these politicians “democrats”, so someone who isn’t terminally tuned into semantic games might not realize it.
It does seem like a pretty easy mistake to make regardless and I don’t think it’s reasonable to call me “extremely conservative” for making it. It’s still pretty common to call these politicians “democrats”, so someone who isn’t terminally tuned into semantic games might not realize it.
> It’s still pretty common to call these politicians “democrats”
Yes, this was the Republicans being successful in their efforts.
I appreciate you acknowledging the term has baggage.
Yes, this was the Republicans being successful in their efforts.
I appreciate you acknowledging the term has baggage.
Sure, but at this point it just kind of feels like splitting hairs and just a means of getting offended on purpose.
Calling people “extremely conservative” because I used a term that is very commonly used pretty much everywhere but leftist circles is needlessly pedantic and very annoying. I think it’s reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Also I’m not fucking conservative. I think Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder and Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk and pretty much anyone on the internet who has ever challenged anyone to a debate is a fucking moron.
Calling people “extremely conservative” because I used a term that is very commonly used pretty much everywhere but leftist circles is needlessly pedantic and very annoying. I think it’s reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Also I’m not fucking conservative. I think Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder and Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk and pretty much anyone on the internet who has ever challenged anyone to a debate is a fucking moron.
The commonality of the term is the result of intentional usage over a long span of time by right wing politicians, media, and personalities.
If you've ever disregarded or downplayed the power and reach of right wing media and propaganda, think on this conversation and how a derogatory term for members of the Democratic party entered common usage.
You don't have to actually watch or like right wing propaganda to be influenced by it because it is pervasive in the United States and has been for decades.
If you've ever disregarded or downplayed the power and reach of right wing media and propaganda, think on this conversation and how a derogatory term for members of the Democratic party entered common usage.
You don't have to actually watch or like right wing propaganda to be influenced by it because it is pervasive in the United States and has been for decades.
Lots of etymologies have depressing origins, I do not think it makes someone “extremely conservative” just because they’re not fully aware of all these etymologies.
For example, the term “grandfather clause” originates due to racist laws designed to prevent black people from voting, but I don’t go around calling people who say they were “grandfathered in” are huge supporters of slavery because that would be fucking stupid. They clearly are just using a colloquialism and pretending you are offended by something that you’re actually not offended by as some kind of bizarre justification of your terminally online persona is weird.
But that’s just my opinion; apparently I’m extremely conservative, which is news to me. Maybe I should hang out in leftist circle jerk discord servers.
For example, the term “grandfather clause” originates due to racist laws designed to prevent black people from voting, but I don’t go around calling people who say they were “grandfathered in” are huge supporters of slavery because that would be fucking stupid. They clearly are just using a colloquialism and pretending you are offended by something that you’re actually not offended by as some kind of bizarre justification of your terminally online persona is weird.
But that’s just my opinion; apparently I’m extremely conservative, which is news to me. Maybe I should hang out in leftist circle jerk discord servers.
The reason it seems like an easy mistake to make is that you've been consuming conservative media that uses it routinely. Presumably this is the same media that told you about this ETF whose ticker is a joke about Nancy Pelosi, and suggested that it proves some fact comparable to the current administration's misconduct. Again, I'm not saying you personally consider yourself to be conservative - but if you don't, you've been tricked, and you need to urgently reevaluate how much you listen to the people who tricked you.
Which “conservative media” are you referring to? I don’t watch Fox News, I don’t watch Newsmax, I don’t listen to Alex Jones, I don’t watch CNN, I don’t watch MSNBC, I don’t listen to any political commentators.
The fact that the ETF is outperforming the regular market demonstrates that there’s some shiftiness going on. I am pretty sure that was the point.
I didn’t say it was comparable to the Trump admins misconduct, read my comment again. I said that democrats aren’t immune from shittiness.
Pretending to not understand what I was saying is extremely irritating.
ETA:
I reread my comment and I realize that I said “not categorically better”, which can easily be interpreted as an equivalence.
That wasn’t what I was trying to say. I was just trying to say like we shouldn’t act like there isn’t some level on shittiness on the democratic side.
The fact that the ETF is outperforming the regular market demonstrates that there’s some shiftiness going on. I am pretty sure that was the point.
I didn’t say it was comparable to the Trump admins misconduct, read my comment again. I said that democrats aren’t immune from shittiness.
Pretending to not understand what I was saying is extremely irritating.
ETA:
I reread my comment and I realize that I said “not categorically better”, which can easily be interpreted as an equivalence.
That wasn’t what I was trying to say. I was just trying to say like we shouldn’t act like there isn’t some level on shittiness on the democratic side.
Hard for me to know what you watch and listen to. Stereotypical "podcast bros" are one big thing I've seen - there's a lot of political content out there that gets cast as "apolitical" because the nominal topic is something else or the hosts are sympathetic to Bernie Sanders. (And this is something I'd absolutely is a both-sides thing, a lot of the content creators I follow do take broadly left-wing themes for granted.)
Well good news! I also don’t listen to podcasts! I think Joe Rogan is a big stupid idiot, and may have singularly caused more damage than nearly anyone currently alive. I used to listen to a lot of NPR podcasts but I haven’t in years.
I guess I do read The Onion so I am not divorced from politics, but I try to mostly avoid consuming much political shit.
Yeah yeah I know everything is political, I promise you that you don’t need to lecture me on that fact. I am just saying that most of the shit I consume now largely boils down to videos about how video games work or “documentaries” about lolcows on YouTube. I have tried to unplug from everything that gravitates around the political news sphere. The only place I get any “news” is HN nowadays, and I mostly try and read the tech shit.
I guess I do read The Onion so I am not divorced from politics, but I try to mostly avoid consuming much political shit.
Yeah yeah I know everything is political, I promise you that you don’t need to lecture me on that fact. I am just saying that most of the shit I consume now largely boils down to videos about how video games work or “documentaries” about lolcows on YouTube. I have tried to unplug from everything that gravitates around the political news sphere. The only place I get any “news” is HN nowadays, and I mostly try and read the tech shit.
It's an explanation, not a justification.
You're letting past gov'ts away with a lot apparently but overall i agree.
The Overton window shifted too far and now an egomaniac is in charge of its reset.
You're letting past gov'ts away with a lot apparently but overall i agree.
The Overton window shifted too far and now an egomaniac is in charge of its reset.
> Corruption definitely crosses the aisle.
it isn't possible for you to be so poorly informed that you think "Joe Biden's son told people who his dad was so they'd let him do a business deal" is in the same scale as:
- taking direct bribes from Qatar - the president and his family launching multiple cryptocurrency firms to do infinite fraud and money laundering - demanding and accepting direct bribes from universities and using taxpayer money as the cudgel - directly taking cash from randoms for pardons
etc etc etc
it isn't possible for you to be so poorly informed that you think "Joe Biden's son told people who his dad was so they'd let him do a business deal" is in the same scale as:
- taking direct bribes from Qatar - the president and his family launching multiple cryptocurrency firms to do infinite fraud and money laundering - demanding and accepting direct bribes from universities and using taxpayer money as the cudgel - directly taking cash from randoms for pardons
etc etc etc
Such is dialectics, but if you are going to apply relativism to comparatively very different movements you are in for a really bad time.
> It seems the most of their policies are bitter reactions to perceived misdeeds from "the left"
"Perceived" is a very important word in that sentence. The "misdeeds" don't actually exist, they are only "perceived" as part of right wing manufactured victimhood.
"Perceived" is a very important word in that sentence. The "misdeeds" don't actually exist, they are only "perceived" as part of right wing manufactured victimhood.
> It seems the most of their policies are bitter reactions to perceived misdeeds from "the left".
lolwhat? “I don’t like what I imagined the left is doing so I’m going to turn our cities into police states?” In what world is that a reasonable justification? Might as well say it’s a bitter reaction to the tooth fairy.
lolwhat? “I don’t like what I imagined the left is doing so I’m going to turn our cities into police states?” In what world is that a reasonable justification? Might as well say it’s a bitter reaction to the tooth fairy.
95% of the time they are talking about the vaccine mandate and lockdowns in response to a fkn pandemic that provable killed hundreds of thousands, easily shown with the dip in average lifetime length stats of Americans for a while there. I think we're observing false equivalency here to protect a felon who currently holds the office of the Presidency.
It's an explanation not a justification.
It's an excuse, not an explanation.
It's an explanation, as much as you wish it isn't.
It isn’t an explanation, because it has causality backwards. The Trump Administration wants to do some things, and so they come up with excuses to why they should be allowed to do them. Their actions aren’t the response, they’re the initial desire.
Destroying democracy has literally never been a goal of the democratic party, unlike the well laid out plan in project 2025, which is really just Stage 1 of their plan.
This is such utter BS. And also, btw, also doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The left isn't immune to feeling bitter disgust at titans of industry that openly pay bribes and tributes and lie on camera in service of political objectives in exchange for political and economic favors.
The left isn't immune to feeling bitter disgust at titans of industry that openly pay bribes and tributes and lie on camera in service of political objectives in exchange for political and economic favors.
The left does not equal the democrat party.
The right does not equate to the republican party.
My point is that there is open levels of collusion with the Biden admin (and Obama earlier) and media corps which have given the Trump admin cover to openly talk about their "favored companies"
Relax guy, politicians are not your friends.
My point is that there is open levels of collusion with the Biden admin (and Obama earlier) and media corps which have given the Trump admin cover to openly talk about their "favored companies"
Relax guy, politicians are not your friends.
> My point is that there is open levels of collusion with the Biden admin (and Obama earlier) and media corps
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
Twitter Files, the FBI @ facebook
This case just doesnt sit right with me.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/biden-admin-cant-be...
This case just doesnt sit right with me.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/26/biden-admin-cant-be...
Foreign operatives were legitimately engaging in information warfare against the American people, so it makes sense for FBI and others to let American companies know when their platforms are being used for these things.
This is especially true when such content is already against the policy of those services.
This is especially true when such content is already against the policy of those services.
"Foreign operatives were legitimately engaging in information warfare against the American people" - says the government at the time, therein lies the concern.
No Government should regulate the internet.
No Government should regulate the internet.
Telling a site that it has content on it that is against that site's own policy is not regulating the internet. Especially when there is no real or implied threat against the site if they do not remove that content.
That’s all well and good if you live in lala land where nothing bad is ever happening that isn’t the current government’s fault, but here in the Real World, the impacts of foreign governments engaging in an information war need to be dealt with. Part of that begins with acknowledging the objective fact that foreign state actors are engaged in such an information war.
You can believe that. But "FBI tells social media companies about an interference campaign" is not anything resembling "Trump demands direct payments in the form of settlements in exchange for favorable treatment in M&A regulation."
It's probably a reference to the twitter files which showed coordinated efforts between Trump term1 and Twitter.
The “Twitter files” showed almost nothing of substance, to my knowledge. What are these coordinated efforts you’re talking about?
The Twitter Files, much like the Mueller Report is useful to determine who the disingenuous or ignorant are. The people most likely to bring them up make claims completely opposite to what is actually contained within the documents because that's what they were told was in them. They can't ever be bothered to actually read the things they are using as "evidence". They just have to point to them ominously.
To them the Twitter files proves that Democrats and Twitter collaborated to suppress conservative voices and boost liberals despite showing nothing to that effect.
To them the Mueller Report fully exonerates Trump and proves it was nothing but a Democratic smear campaign. Despite it showing the opposite.
Reality doesn't matter anymore. These are "facts" to roughly 1/3rd of the US population.
To them the Twitter files proves that Democrats and Twitter collaborated to suppress conservative voices and boost liberals despite showing nothing to that effect.
To them the Mueller Report fully exonerates Trump and proves it was nothing but a Democratic smear campaign. Despite it showing the opposite.
Reality doesn't matter anymore. These are "facts" to roughly 1/3rd of the US population.
Im uninvolved in politics. Can someone explain to me why it's facist that the government is recording who is cooperative and who isn't? That doesn't seem malicious to me, unless you assume it will be used for punishing poorly cooperative companies. Even then, lawmakers know who cooperates and who doesn't, they don't need a spreadsheet for it. I'm willing to be enlightened of my ignorance here.
There is never any purpose for a government rating people/organizations on an axis except to act on that information in some way, and there is basically no way that the government acting on ratings of loyalty to the present leadership, is not, at a minimum, a dangerous promotion of private interest above public interest.
It is fascist, though, only in the context of other actions by the administration.
It is fascist, though, only in the context of other actions by the administration.
I think this is a good question that shouldn't be down-voted.
If you look at various definitions of what facism means, you may see something like: "characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition" (from M-W).
A "loyalty rating" implements both economic regimentation (the insinuation that higher scoring companies have better favor) and suppression of opposition (that companies actively avoid being seen as opposition).
So this is text-book fascist behavior.
It's not hyperbole to envision the justice department looking the other way for high-scoring companies, and actively persecuting low-scoring companies. You're right in that this is already happening (like with e.g. Harvard), but implementing a score in the open makes it shockingly easy to carry out fascist directives across the government bureaucracy.
If you look at various definitions of what facism means, you may see something like: "characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition" (from M-W).
A "loyalty rating" implements both economic regimentation (the insinuation that higher scoring companies have better favor) and suppression of opposition (that companies actively avoid being seen as opposition).
So this is text-book fascist behavior.
It's not hyperbole to envision the justice department looking the other way for high-scoring companies, and actively persecuting low-scoring companies. You're right in that this is already happening (like with e.g. Harvard), but implementing a score in the open makes it shockingly easy to carry out fascist directives across the government bureaucracy.
> Can someone explain to me why it's facist that the government is recording who is cooperative and who isn't?
Because your experience with the government in a democracy shouldn't be dependent on whether the person in power decides you have shown sufficient fealty.
> unless you assume it will be used for punishing poorly cooperative companies.
Like they have so far?
Because your experience with the government in a democracy shouldn't be dependent on whether the person in power decides you have shown sufficient fealty.
> unless you assume it will be used for punishing poorly cooperative companies.
Like they have so far?
The administration's vindictiveness and obsession with loyalty is extreme (for the US).
John Adams: "I see a new nation ready to take its place in the world; not an empire, but a republic; and a republic of laws, not men."
This government already has a track record of punishing poorly cooperative companies! Look into the illegal executive orders that targeted various law firms.
> unless you assume it will be used for punishing poorly cooperative companies.
You don't have to assume that. The US government has already made that policy quite clear.
You don't have to assume that. The US government has already made that policy quite clear.
Does this also apply to Tesla with the previous administration, or is this new dynamic?
It does not, because the previous administrations haven't openly spoken about retracting contracts because of personal infighting[1]. I am under no illusion that the American Democratic party is also quite terrible, but that does not make the current administrations outright corruption any more unclear.
[1]: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1146322069923...
[1]: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1146322069923...
Sure, the Biden admin actively targeted a publicly traded company[0] because their CEO was critical of the administration, but that's not fascism. Fascism is when the bad guys make spreadsheets.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/ev-tax-credit-2024-tesla-model-3-ex...
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/ev-tax-credit-2024-tesla-model-3-ex...
Those battery sourcing provisions for the EV tax credit came from the Inflation Reduction Act which was enacted in August 2022. The administration did not ask for them to be put in. The came from a deal in July or August to get Senator Manchin to vote for the bill, which was critical for its passage.
Afterwards when it came to implementing them the administration implemented them as loosely as it could to try to minimize the number of EVs that would lose the tax credit. In particular it did not apply them to leases, which greatly upset Manchin who said that they were supposed to apply there too.
Afterwards when it came to implementing them the administration implemented them as loosely as it could to try to minimize the number of EVs that would lose the tax credit. In particular it did not apply them to leases, which greatly upset Manchin who said that they were supposed to apply there too.
Do you have any evidence that the change in enforcement was targeted at Tesla or that the change was in response to Musk’s criticism?
Also, comparing the actions of Trump to anything any previous President (including Trump 1!) almost feels like you’re being disingenuous.
Also, comparing the actions of Trump to anything any previous President (including Trump 1!) almost feels like you’re being disingenuous.
It's funny, actually. When an anonymous source says there's a scary spreadsheet in the Trump White House, progs are happy to believe the unsourced and unprovable claim on faith, imagine the worst possible implications, and assert those entirely imaginary implications are evidence of fascism. But when considering the fact that the Biden admin actually, actively did financial harm to one of their most prominent critics, progs instantaneously drop the concerned citizen schtick and are happy to assume that any and all real harm done to critics is accidental until proven beyond a reasonable doubt!
The thing is that this administration has repeatedly and openly punished, intervened, otherwise interfered directly the affairs of _specific_ private companies in a blatantly corrupt manner based on the opinion of the president. This is indisputable, and this spreadsheet would just be an extension of that.
Believing the anonymous source about (rather believing that Axios hires credible journalists who will investigate sources) is not a stretch based on what we’ve seen. The implications are not imaginary at all. These are things the president has done.
The previous administration changing some guidance that impacts a massive industry and for vague reasons _may_ be targeting a political adversary, is a much shakier case.
Frankly, this massive difference in scope is why I think comparisons are often disingenuous.
Believing the anonymous source about (rather believing that Axios hires credible journalists who will investigate sources) is not a stretch based on what we’ve seen. The implications are not imaginary at all. These are things the president has done.
The previous administration changing some guidance that impacts a massive industry and for vague reasons _may_ be targeting a political adversary, is a much shakier case.
Frankly, this massive difference in scope is why I think comparisons are often disingenuous.
Read up on the law firms he targeted simply for having dems as clients.
[deleted]